Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/12/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
this is not pd-simple McZusatz (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete, obvious {{Copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per LX McZusatz (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright issues Mustakim Shafi (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a self-made cover-art by a fan who has used a copyrighted image to falsely make an album cover. The image used is a video still from Nicki Minaj's song "Freedom", which has then been poorly edited to include the name of an album which does not yet exist. Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 16:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
No permission for obviously professional image on the link provided. Dismas (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be own work. We hope (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
No source or date of photo. We hope (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work, wrong license, copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
cross wiki spam. previously deleted Quakewoody (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- The reason previous image was deleted was missing the EXIF data. I guess the image is having perfect details and represent the notable person. How could you mark as cross-wiki spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilanemak (talk • contribs) 14:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- The reason previous image was deleted was "as above". --E4024 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Cross wiki self promotion. Image used on other wiki projects for self promotion. Non Notable person. Out of projects educational scope ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 10:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Now we have two DRs. Can some admin take care of closing this discussion, please? --E4024 (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- We also have a speedy tag... which wouldn't happen if the uploader didn't keep removing the tags.
- and just to give an update - the wikipedia articles (in multiple languages) have all been deleted AGAIN. Quakewoody (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait, I didn't lie. I just wasn't up to speed. The article was deleted, but the spammer created another article on AWA shortly after it was deleted. Quakewoody (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- and just to give an update - the wikipedia articles (in multiple languages) have all been deleted AGAIN. Quakewoody (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
How can this image be copyright free when H. Speidel only passed away in 1976? Leoboudv (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
solo era una prueba a ver como se miraba un archivo Solofer (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
typographic error in name Hsarrazin (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Jaranda wat's sup 02:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The copyright status of this flag cannot be verified. It has a city coat of arms on top, which could be found on the official website of that city. And at the bottom of that page, it says "版權所有請勿任意轉載"(Chinese), which means "All rights reserved. Please do not reprint at your will." literally. The original source of this flag could not be found, the page for the png version of this image on Chinese Wikipedia points to a site containing a mere collection of flags and nothing about copyright was mentioned. I don't know whether the Article 9 would be applicable. The uploader has uploaded many similar images, the result of this discussion would probably affect those as well. Lakokat (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Contain this and this image, which is under ARR and cc-by-nc-nd Morning ☼ (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you can wait until the turkey and sprouts have gone down, the endless films watched and the last church services done, then I'll do a replacement with the two offending images replaced with free ones. Hang on until then so I can copy the appropriate bits of the summary code.Hogweard (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- All done. I have uploaded a new version with the same name, in which I removed the two inadequately licensed Flickr pictures and replaced them with images already on Commons. I hope that I reworded the authorship code correctly too. Hogweard (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted old revision. INeverCry 00:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Not needed: really a duplicate of File:Kostroma_watchtower.jpg except with minor adjustment, and this changed version is preserved in the history of the other file This, that and the other (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted image taken from http://www.annalsafrmed.org/, cannot be released under CC by anonymous editor Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
DW of painting by painter who passed away in 1976 - no PD-old. Lymantria (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: PD-Old cannot apply to authors or artists who died 36 years ago. Its too recent unfortunately. Its an unfree derivative. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Logo of Turkish football club Elazigspor (See logo on official web). Fma12 (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope, Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Also unclear authorship, the information provided in the author field is different to the information in the file EXIF from PDF creation. Martin H. (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Own photo, privacy. Jurgen1996 (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
(en) Seems to be a fan art of copyrighted content
(fr) Semble être un fan art d'un contenu sous droit d'auteur X-Javier (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Image issue du film d'animation vu dans l'article http://www.kanpai.fr/manga-anime/princesse-mononoke-analyse.html X-Javier (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF, unlikely own work Morning ☼ (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Images of non-notable person, out of scope, article has been tagged for speedy deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I doubt own work: watermark, copies on the Net. Yann (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a 1994 work of Herbert Abrams who, except for service in the Army during WWII, was never an employee of the Federal government. As is the case with the Gerald Ford portrait, the government does not own this copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete I see nothing that remotely suggests that this work should not be speedily deleted from Wikimedia Commons. There is a widespread misconception that anything on a U.S. government site is in the public domain, and to allow this to remain at all perpetuates that misconception, not to mention the violation of Wikimedia policy, which admins must not attempt to overrule. I don’t see this item in the referenced source page, but I do notice that the source page itself is protected under copyright with the note “Copyright 2009 by the White House Historical Association”. Even absent this note, the work itself is clearly by an individual and there is no evidence that the individual was an employee of the U.S. government at the time of the publication of the work or that the contracted work was not subject to copyright. The CENDI group addresses this issue in its page, Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright, at 4.1 If a Work Was Created Under a Government Contract, Who Holds the Copyright?. —Danorton (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment The image appears at the referenced source URL at the time of the original uploading at archive.org in an inferior form[1]. The parent page to that page indicates that the content is from a copyright work, The Presidents of the United States of America, Freidel & Sidey. [2]. —Danorton (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do not see that, but in any case it is irrelevant. Bridgeman v. Corel applies to all images of paintings. It is WMF policy that there is no copyright in the image of a painting, so that it is not an infringement to take images of paintings from copyrighted works. The only question here is the copyright in the painting itself, which belongs to Herbert Abrams's heirs and will expire in 2073. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete clearly a copyright violation. Also might be considered File:The_Peacemakers_-_background_image.jpg --moogsi(blah) 16:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. We have a full image of The Peacemakers, so this is useful only to the extent that it includes a silhouette from the subject painting. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is the work of Billy Bates, not our uploader. No evidence of permission . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Infringes on the copyright of the pictured work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think our uploader created this and I certainly don't think she has licenses for all the images in it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Several web instances. I've just DRed all of this uploader's other work, so she probably doesn't understand copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Es ofensivo y prepotente que los catalenes digan que los valencianos hablamos catalán. Tenemos identidad própia y queremos que se respete. 83.55.140.49 13:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy keep; no valid reason for deletion given. The image is widely used (over 20 projects). As stated in Commons:Project scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project: "Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." If you don't like it, create an alternative, upload it under a different name and obtain consensus to use it instead on the other projects. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)- Keep - Pues arréglalo. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Argumentos 100% subjetivos
[edit]
Se trata de un argumento totalmente subjetivo. El Catalán o Valenciano son glotónimos que en términos lingüísticos hacen referencia a un mismo dominio lingüístico. Tú estás haciendo referencia a fronteras políticas que nada tienen que ver con este mapa lingüístico. De hecho si lo que quieres es llevar tu discurso por el tema político, te diré que el Tribunal Supremo de la justicia española que reconoce la unidad de la lengua y la equivalencia entre las denominaciones de catalán y valenciano (http://www.abc.es/20120730/espana/abci-juez-equipara-catalan-valenciano-201207301301.html). Un saludo.--Karkeixa (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ya se cerró esta discusión. Deberás traer tus argumentos a la página de discusión. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a scan, no indication about own work by uploader. GeorgHH • talk 14:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
unused completely black image Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm the original upoader but I created a new version, this time saved as .jpg, which has the same resolution, but a smaller size. See File:High Asia Mountain Ranges.jpg. So this one is obsolete. It's not used anymore. Thank you for deletion. Rupert Pupkin (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
User is requesting deletion. Chemgirl131 15:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why? --Sreejith K (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: User talk pages are not deleted. Yann (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Logo - Threshold of originality concern. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that John Howard Sanden was ever a US Government employee. It is well established that the copyright in portraits like this one remains with the artist. There is no evidence that he has freely licensed this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- The work was commissioned by the White House Historical Association and was gifted to a trust. I am not certain how work-for-hire relates to the US Government at all, but just adding some background info. No opinion on this deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment A very similar example, the official Gerald Ford portrait has been deleted because the artist, Everett Raymond Kinstler has explicitly said that he claims copyright, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg. As far as I can see, there is no reason to think that this case is any different. Among the artists before the 1989 law change, only Kinstler included notice on his works, so all the portraits before George H.W. Bush, except those by Kinstler, appear to be OK. I have tagged Clinton and both Bushes. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Sculpture by Raymond Delamarre, dead in 1986. No freedom of panorama in France. Copyright violation. 90.44.44.237 17:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a capture from screen/TV. COM:DW. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Nature of the work makes it appear unlikely that this is the work of the uploader. Image generates multiple Google hits (example), and it is unlikely that this image was first uploaded to Commons. CT Cooper · talk 17:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 18:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.133.39 17:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsense request. There are other pictures of this building on commons. JJ Georges (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This request makes sense. There is no exception to copyright of architects in France such as the german Freedom of panorama. A picture of a building is a derivative work of the building and it requires the permission of the architect to have it under free licence on Commons. I know how stupid it is to have droit d'auteur on buildings but we don't write the laws. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 18:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparent derivative work of portion of official team logo as seen at w:File:EastCoastEagleslogo.jpg. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - blurry - no educational value INeverCry 18:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 18:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 18:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the work of Herbert Abrams who was never an employee of the Federal Government. There is no evidence that he has freely licensed this portrait. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the work of Herbert Abrams who was never an employee of the Federal Government. There is no evidence that he has freely licensed this portrait. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value at this size/quality INeverCry 18:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
CV under Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivative Works on Flickr. Watermark was removed violating the copyright. Additionally this image is a personal photo of mine not intended to be distributed on Wikipedia or without the watermark. Natalieaja (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As I see it, this was a Flickr image reviewed by User:Abigor on 3 March 2009, and confirmed as being CC-BY-2.0 at that time. CC licenses are irrevocable - it does not matter what Flickr says now, Flickr users can change that item as much as they want to, what matters is the license that existed at the time of the upload. Ronhjones (Talk) 17:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Ronhjones, however User 石 mentions ticket:2012122410001506 when correcting my removal of the speedy tag on the "irrevocable" grounds. Perhaps there is something illuminating the matter in that ticket? - Badseed talk 21:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is what the OTRS ticket says: I am writing to request a photo that I took to be removed from Wikipedia as I had not posted there, was not asked if it could be posted on the website, and it was altered without my permission (watermark removed). I do acknowledge that it is credited to me when clicked through however the licensing that I have had for the past year or more on that photo through my Flickr website falls under: Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivative Works. The editing of this photo clearly violates that and despite that it was supposedly "confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date" therefore I am asking that it be removed.
- This, unfortunately, is not a valid reason for deletion. So I vote Keep --Sreejith K (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, then. That's a keep from me too, per the above and Ronhjones's reasoning - Badseed talk 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep According to reasons given by Ronhjones. Fma12 (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, then. That's a keep from me too, per the above and Ronhjones's reasoning - Badseed talk 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparent derivative work of official logo as seen at w:File:BoxHillHawkslogo.jpg. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparent derivative work of official team logo as seen at w:File:Caseyscorpians.jpg. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparent derivative work of official team logo as seen at w:File:FrankstonDolphinslogo.jpg. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope - a small number of personal uploads has always been tolerated by the community, but thirteen, as documented at w:User:Robinbd/photogallery is too many. I will drop the user a note. The full list is:
- File:Robin Hossain chat.png
- File:Robin Hossain.jpg
- File:Robin-Hossain.jpg
- File:Robin Hossain 3.jpg
- File:Robin Hossain model 1.jpg
- File:Robin Hossain model 2.jpg
- File:Robin Hossain model 3.jpg
- File:Robin Hossain model 4.jpg
- File:Robin Hossain model 5.jpg
- File:Robin Hossain model 2 photo.jpg
- File:Nain 1.jpg
- File:Robin Hossain versorium.jpg
- File:Robin Hossain 21 Dec 2012.jpg
Also, if the photos were taken by a professional photographer, then while the uploader will have personality rights of the photos, they will not actually be the copyright holder, making the licenses given invalid. CT Cooper · talk 19:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparent derivative work of team logo as seen at w:File:NthBallaratRoostersLogo.jpg. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Logo appears to be creative enough to meet the threshold of creativity and a derivative work of the official logo as can be seen on actual shirts, e.g. at http://www.succeed.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/hawksteam21.jpg VernoWhitney (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any way we can remove the logo but still keep the colors and the stripes so it can be used for (somewhat generic) identification purposes? Sorry, I'm not an expert with graphics, though... Michael Barera (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Generic coloured jumpers are meaningless in Australian Football. Tuggeranong's jumper is what it is. Animal designs are common on Australian Football jumpers. In any case in this specific instance the hawk design on this particular jumper image is an old one and is different to the one on the club's current logo. Also the link provided by the mod of a photo of the jumper is out of date as well. Tuggeranong uses a Hawthorn jumper nowdays so the only issue here is the jumper image is out of date. Other than that I'm not sure why this mod is deleting the jumper image especially given it has been on wikipedia for the past 3.5 years without a single complaint from any other mod. Mtiges (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am aware that it is not the current jumper design, but that does not make it any less copyrightable. If the logo is in the public domain for some reason or another (due to age, possibly?), that information needs to be added to the file description page. Just because no other editor has brought this image up for discussion is not by itself a reason to retain the image. As to whether the logo could be removed from the jumper - certainly, but as Mtiges explained once you make it generic the educational value is severely decreased. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Derived from our SVG file of the Colombian flag. Fry1989 eh? 20:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
No notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
No notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image - only link is to declined hoax AFC INeverCry 21:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 21:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 21:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio 
(discusión) 01:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Image has no on-line flickr source to verify the author and license. Leoboudv (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Files by Barcelonaforrent (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:1-Barcelona-ApartmentsL-Vila-Olimpica-Beach salon.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartments-Plaza-España estancia.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartments-SantPauB2-patio-terraza.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartments-Sant-Pau-Sagrada-Familia-building-4 terraza.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartments-Sant-Pau-Sagrada-Familia-Building-2-2 terraza.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-apartments Sant-Pau-Sagrada-Familia-Building B-1 salon.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartment-Sant-Pau-Sagrada-Familia-Building-3 terraza.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartments-Sant-Pau-Sagrada Familia salon.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartments-Sant-Pau-Sagrada-Familia-1-2 salon.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartment-Sant-Pau-Sagrada-Familia-Building-2-1 salon.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartments-Universitat-Ramblas comedor.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartments-Gaudi-SuitesI salon.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartments Marina-Deluxe salon.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-apartments-Gaudi-Suites-II-salon-comedor.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-apartments Marina-BeachII estancia.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartments Barceloneta-Beach cocina-comedor-salon.jpg
- File:1-Barcelona-Apartments-Loft-Barceloneta Beach-2-salon.jpg
- File:Barcelonaforrent-icono.jpg
The name of this user seems to indicate that the purpose of these pictures is to try to rent apartments, so out of scope for Commons. Badzil (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sandrasauer (talk · contribs)
[edit]as File:Liv bloock.jpg seems to be a copyvio (exif: Veröffentlichung nur mit Urheberangabe (§13 UehG) gegen Honorar (+7% MwSt.) und Belegexemplar gestattet) despite being stated as own work, the other images presumably are copyvios, too
- File:LIV 2008 09.jpg
- File:Liv 1.bundesliga dammen 2010.jpg
- File:Liv bloock.jpg
- File:Liv x rexona 2008.jpg
Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of the copyrighted map This, that and the other (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- If a svg clear (like that one) version will be created, it will not be deleted? בנימין (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: If you create a new map that is not copied from this one, OK -- but if it looks like a copy, it will be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploader says he is a subject, but claims own work. The crowded environment makes a self-portrait from a tripod unlikely. 83.254.247.75 21:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you sign yourself openly as User:Pieter Kuiper if you are going to blatantly abuse the Commons DR process by endlessly trolling me by sockpuppeting through anon IP addresses? Sad, very sad. --Fæ (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This was my 500,000th edit on Wikimedia Commons. Pieter could not resist the opportunity to try and hurt me through his cyberbullying tactics, the same tactics which have been maliciously hounding me for at least a year whilst at the same time he endlessly snipes, inflames discussion attacking me and makes personal accusations about me off-wiki as "piku". This is my photograph, taken in a public place, at a public event, which in good faith I have released for the public benefit 21 years after it was taken. Pieter has made Commons an unpleasantly hostile environment for other contributors for years. Perhaps Pieter would like to estimate how many editors he can now proudly boast of driving away from Commons?
- I am aware that this sort of reply is exactly what Pieter is hoping for. Well done Pieter, I hope that upsetting me is making your Christmas extra special. What else do you and your blocked pals have planned for the season? A head's up would be helpful so I can decide whether it is worth halting my Commons work for the period, as that seems what you are so bloody desperate to achieve, you may as well "win" your hostile cyberbullying campaign. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - obviously not "own work". i just self-nominated one of my own uploads for this reason. :( Badmachine (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hello "Badmachine", do you have anything to say about the attack page off-wiki that you are actively maintaining about me, where you label me as a faggot? --Fæ (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- let's fuck? Badmachine (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, no shame at all for calling me a faggot then. Just because you might identify as gay, does not make creating homophobic attack pages about Wikimedians acceptable. --Fæ (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- let's fuck? Badmachine (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hello "Badmachine", do you have anything to say about the attack page off-wiki that you are actively maintaining about me, where you label me as a faggot? --Fæ (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This totally doesn't look to me as if it was Fae's own work, and I agree with the arguments of the nominator. I would also suggest to Fae that he focuses on the points being raised instead of turning the discussion onto one about him being harassed off-wiki; we are not discussing this subject here. odder (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your opinion is awesome! By which I mean: Keep, out of principle. If this was actually a technical copyright violation you could make me give about seven thousandths of a shit if you held me at gunpoint, and then I would still go home thinking this was fucking stupid. Let them settle this lame personal vendetta somewhere else; Commons should not be a platform for harassment. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your opinion is awesome! By which I mean:
- Comment Looking at the photo it's unlikely the subject pressed the button on the camera, remotely or otherwise. But that doesn't mean the subject hasn't, implicitly or explicitly, been passed the copyright of the photo by whoever did press the button. And as a pre-digital-era photo, it's clearly scanned from a print, so there's at least that "own work" element (for those wondering why it was labelled that way). So if uploader explicitly says he believes the copyright was passed to him, we should accept that statement in good faith. Otherwise, it needs to be deleted. Rd232 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to hear Fae explain the technical details of how the picture was taken. A simple statement that the photographer verbally passed copyright would be sufficient per COM:SCOPE. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The technical detail is that slightly more than 21 years ago, I was at Pride London with a group of friends and I asked one of them to take a shot of me at the event on my camera, probably on one of my cheap 35mm cameras, verbally passing copyright. This photo has not been published and I own the print (which nobody else owns a copy of), the negative and any scans I create, in fact if I can track down the original print in my spare room, I may rescan at a much better resolution than this current version. I could create an OTRS ticket by sending in an email and getting my friend (who happens to still be alive) to email in against an independent professional address, however this seems excessive considering my statement is already here, the intention of the banned user sockpuppeting to create this DR (who is proudly crowing about his achievement here on Wikipediocracy) and I prefer to keep the name of my friend confidential, which OTRS does not and can not guarantee to do. It strikes me that if I said I asked an anonymous stranger take the photo 21 years ago, verbally passing copyright, this would be easier. At the end of the day, Commons should not be allowed to become a hostile environment for contributors. The fact that Pieter Kuiper is repeatedly and persistently using DRs in violation of Blocking policy as a tool to create a hostile environment for his targets—on Wikipediocracy he clearly blames me for his ban—is not a situation that should be encouraged or allowed to continue indefinitely with administrators apparently unable or unwilling to take further action. It has already been going on all bloody year, that's enough surely? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Try to ignore the noise; discussing it here helps no-one. There was a real issue here and it's now settled (as far as I'm concerned), so that's a positive outcome to focus on. Rd232 (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The technical detail is that slightly more than 21 years ago, I was at Pride London with a group of friends and I asked one of them to take a shot of me at the event on my camera, probably on one of my cheap 35mm cameras, verbally passing copyright. This photo has not been published and I own the print (which nobody else owns a copy of), the negative and any scans I create, in fact if I can track down the original print in my spare room, I may rescan at a much better resolution than this current version. I could create an OTRS ticket by sending in an email and getting my friend (who happens to still be alive) to email in against an independent professional address, however this seems excessive considering my statement is already here, the intention of the banned user sockpuppeting to create this DR (who is proudly crowing about his achievement here on Wikipediocracy) and I prefer to keep the name of my friend confidential, which OTRS does not and can not guarantee to do. It strikes me that if I said I asked an anonymous stranger take the photo 21 years ago, verbally passing copyright, this would be easier. At the end of the day, Commons should not be allowed to become a hostile environment for contributors. The fact that Pieter Kuiper is repeatedly and persistently using DRs in violation of Blocking policy as a tool to create a hostile environment for his targets—on Wikipediocracy he clearly blames me for his ban—is not a situation that should be encouraged or allowed to continue indefinitely with administrators apparently unable or unwilling to take further action. It has already been going on all bloody year, that's enough surely? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep per my previous comment and uploader's confirmation. A brief note to this effect in the permission field should suffice. General comment: this sort of situation does crop up once in a while - maybe we should construct a template for it. Rd232 (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't think I can trust a user who claims a picture to be his own work, and only reveals the truth when pressed to do so with a DR nomination. Can we please get an OTRS permission for the picture, and have the matter settled this way once and for all? Thanks. odder (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh please, the truth is that this is my photo and my copyright as I said at the beginning. Odder, you are in no doubt that I can use OTRS to provide a ticket for this image, that would just prove that I have sent an email with little more authority than my statement here - if you are now claiming that I am a liar, you should delete all my uploads as lies. This is letting technicalities of fine wording and fine interpretation of copyright become an enabling platform for malicious abuse by a blocked user. Even the majority of people on Wikipediocracy think this is daft. This was my 500,000th edit. If you want to delete it, just how much respect does that mean I am given on this project? This seems like a good object lesson on how blocked users like Pieter Kuiper can have more kudos and authority here than good faith contributors like myself. Topsy turvy madness. --Fæ (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, the "own work" claim is presumably correct for the scan of the print. It's easy to see how this "own work" statement, although not entirely correct, was made in good faith. We should therefore also accept a clarification in good faith. Rd232 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that clarification solves the issue of inaccuracy of the "own work" statement. Anyway, as Rd232 says, "this sort of situation does crop up once in a while" but we need more a guidance page in such situations than just a template. I'm not sure about how complicated is this dealing with portraits of camera owners by friends or strangers, but I'm afraid it won't be very easier than freedom of panorama, de minimis, ans so on.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, that makes sense, so I've started Commons:Transfer of copyright and a thread at VPC, Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Transfer_of_copyright. Rd232 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that clarification solves the issue of inaccuracy of the "own work" statement. Anyway, as Rd232 says, "this sort of situation does crop up once in a while" but we need more a guidance page in such situations than just a template. I'm not sure about how complicated is this dealing with portraits of camera owners by friends or strangers, but I'm afraid it won't be very easier than freedom of panorama, de minimis, ans so on.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, frivolous deletion by a user who is willfully violating Commons:Blocking policy. -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Cirt and RD232. INeverCry 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the responses by the uploader are convincing sadly. If he brought his own camera to the event, why does he not upload more photos of a series? This has the looks of a snapshot of which he was given a print.128.86.184.77 09:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept Disruption nomination, nothing has changed since last time. russavia (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I made an error. But why is this discussion labelled as disruption? If Fae shows the negative strip, everything will be just fine. 128.86.184.77 15:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Disruptive DR. Harassment IMO. INeverCry 19:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/es_AvisoLegal.htm Does not mention an explicit authorization to use its content for commercial purposes. Dura-Ace (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do think it's the other way around. The authorization is quite explicit as it does not include any exception: The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised. As no exception is mentioned, it's pretty obvious that commercial use is possible. However, the community can decide otherwise. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: THe Google translation is pretty rough, so I will take Ecemami's as accurate. There is no NC restriction and modification is permitted, so it looks OK to me. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/es_AvisoLegal.htm Does not mention an explicit authorization to use its content for commercial purposes. Dura-Ace (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do think it's the other way around. The authorization is quite explicit as it does not include any exception: The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised. As no exception is mentioned, it's pretty obvious that commercial use is possible. However, the community can decide otherwise. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The Google translation is pretty rough, so I will take Ecemami's as accurate. There is no NC restriction and modification is permitted, so it looks OK to me. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/es_AvisoLegal.htm Does not mention an explicit authorization to use its content for commercial purposes. Dura-Ace (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do think it's the other way around. The authorization is quite explicit as it does not include any exception: The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised. As no exception is mentioned, it's pretty obvious that commercial use is possible. However, the community can decide otherwise. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The Google translation is pretty rough, so I will take Ecemami's as accurate. There is no NC restriction and modification is permitted, so it looks OK to me. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/es_AvisoLegal.htm Does not mention an explicit authorization to use its content for commercial purposes. Dura-Ace (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I do think it's the other way around. The authorization is quite explicit as it does not include any exception: The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised. As no exception is mentioned, it's pretty obvious that commercial use is possible. However, the community can decide otherwise. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The Google translation is pretty rough, so I will take Ecemami's as accurate. There is no NC restriction and modification is permitted, so it looks OK to me. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/es_AvisoLegal.htm Does not mention an explicit authorization to use its content for commercial purposes. Dura-Ace (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- I do think it's the other way around. The authorization is quite explicit as it does not include any exception: The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised. As no exception is mentioned, it's pretty obvious that commercial use is possible. However, the community can decide otherwise. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The Google translation is pretty rough, so I will take Ecemami's as accurate. There is no NC restriction and modification is permitted, so it looks OK to me. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/es_AvisoLegal.htm Does not mention an explicit authorization to use its content for commercial purposes. Dura-Ace (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do think it's the other way around. The authorization is quite explicit as it does not include any exception: The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised. As no exception is mentioned, it's pretty obvious that commercial use is possible. However, the community can decide otherwise. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The Google translation is pretty rough, so I will take Ecemami's as accurate. There is no NC restriction and modification is permitted, so it looks OK to me. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/es_AvisoLegal.htm Does not mention an explicit authorization to use its content for commercial purposes. Dura-Ace (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do think it's the other way around. The authorization is quite explicit as it does not include any exception: The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised. As no exception is mentioned, it's pretty obvious that commercial use is possible. However, the community can decide otherwise. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The Google translation is pretty rough, so I will take Ecemami's as accurate. There is no NC restriction and modification is permitted, so it looks OK to me. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Pres. Rajoy con gran parte de la delegacion de deportistas españoles que iran a Londres 2012.jpg
[edit]
http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/es_AvisoLegal.htm Does not mention an explicit authorization to use its content for commercial purposes. Dura-Ace (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do think it's the other way around. The authorization is quite explicit as it does not include any exception: The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised. As no exception is mentioned, it's pretty obvious that commercial use is possible. However, the community can decide otherwise. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The Google translation is pretty rough, so I will take Ecemami's as accurate. There is no NC restriction and modification is permitted, so it looks OK to me. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Similar reasons to Commons:Deletion requests/File:President George W. Bush, 2008, Oil on canvas by Robert A. Anderson.jpg; artist maintains Copyright to portrait and does not appear to be in PD. Marcusmax (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please see [3] -Marcusmax (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Withdraw - Admin please quick close this for me, I did not notice prior disscussions which give me a better sense of this image. -Marcusmax (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Closed at opener's request.Geni (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the artist transferred copyright to the government, and even if she did, there is no reason why it would be PD. See, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ssssaravanan (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user image, out of scope
- File:Sarrow.jpg
- File:Hair cutting.jpg
- File:Kute style.jpg
- File:So lovely drinking.jpg
- File:Fresh both.jpg
Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AgenturTraumhochzeit (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ashiksahadath (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of scope
Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Наталія Терентьєва (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of TV screenshots/promo photos, not own work.
- File:Teritoriya obmanu 1.jpg
- File:Solomia Vitvitska.jpg
- File:Tsn logo.jpg
- File:Alla Mazur.jpg
- File:Golos Deti Loboda.jpg
- File:Golos Deti2.jpg
- File:Golos Deti1.jpg
- File:Golos Deti3.jpg
- File:Golos Deti Karol.jpg
- File:Ruslan Senichkin1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Здравствуйте! Это действительно иллюстрации для промо. Я являюсь сотрудником PR-отдела канала 1+1 и могу заверить, что их использование в Википедии не нарушает чьих-либо интересов. Наоборот, PR-отдел очень просит не удалять эти изображения, поскольку мы заинтересованы в том, чтобы страницы наших програм были максимально информативными. Пожалуйста, подскажите, что нужно делать, чтобы впредь избежать номинацию?--Наталія Терентьєва (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brianwong1508 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Both found also on Flickr. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Stagecoach humber fast cat.jpg
- File:New stagecoach hull.jpg
- File:Ice arena hull.png
- File:Ice arena hull.jpg
- File:Imag0049.jpg
- File:Hull Foam party.jpg
- File:Disco sheff.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 18:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - personal artworks - no educational value
INeverCry 18:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 18:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 18:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 18:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 18:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Juanchotazo (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Losdelfuego.jpg
- File:Coronel basura.jpg
- File:Lion06.jpg
- File:Lion2006.JPG
- File:Tanguito.jpg
- File:Hernycor1.jpg
- File:Hernis123.jpg
- File:Hernancoro123.jpg
INeverCry 18:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 18:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 18:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 18:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 18:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Y ad39873 m.jpg
- File:Y 7c49863 m.jpg
- File:X 66f9828 m.jpg
- File:Y b2c9878 m.jpg
- File:Y 6e19818 m.jpg
- File:X 9279883.jpg
INeverCry 18:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 18:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 18:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alexandra Paredes (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Bonito.jpg
- File:Alee y Benjaa.jpg
- File:En la disco.JPG
- File:Ft Juanin.JPG
- File:Rojita.jpg
- File:Ft. Mi hermana 3.jpg
- File:Ft. Mi hermana.jpg
- File:Awwwrs.jpg
- File:Con las mas rica.jpg
- File:Pensando volaas.jpg
- File:Basilongo.jpg
- File:Dormir *-*.jpg
- File:Pensando.jpg
- File:Locuras.jpg
- File:La Ale cosina.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nizhny Tagil
[edit]If Google isn't fooling me, then it seems that ru:Нижнетагильский драматический театр имени Д. Мамина-Сибиряка tells that this building is from 1955. Russian copyright law doesn't allow you to use photos of copyrighted buildings commercially.
Stefan4 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - thumb image - single upload of user - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 21:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 21:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 21:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 21:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 21:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - very low quality INeverCry 21:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - very low quality INeverCry 21:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 21:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
its Dulicate Uploaded by myself ShakeelKalhoro (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Duplicate of what? Yann (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
